For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity,
at least as taught today, was incorrect.
I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist,
which is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was
false, I simply said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far
from being the same thing.
Many relativistic equations are correct, but not all of them, and those
that are not, are not significantly correct.
What is very strange is that despite the ease with which I refute certain
points, those who read me often get stuck in stupid refutations, like for
example Python, which is a very pathognomonic case.
Faced with the problem I pose, he, like everyone else, loses his temper,
insults, and says nonsense.
One of the greatest theoretical proofs that I cannot be wrong, despite
everything that people will tell you (because the opposition is very
strong to the new concepts, even if they are superb and demonstrable), is
the way in which I give a number of equations where none are given or
clearly abstract equations.
A textbook case is the Langevin traveler in apparent mode (what we would
see in ultra-powerful telescopes) which I have been talking about for 40
years in a dismaying intellectual desert.
Let's take the classic case:
Let's take a look at Stella's return. What could be simpler to understand
than Stella's own time, in the example considered (Vo=0.8c, d=12al), will
be Tr=9 years for this return.
No one has ever been able to contradict, and no one will ever contradict
(except the Newtonians, but with them, we won't row very far).
But what could be simpler to understand than Stella, in her frame of
reference, sees the earth (Vo=0.8c) returning towards her at Vapp=4c.
I remind you, as Jean-Pierre Python finds it hard to believe, that
Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) and that those who have been contradicting me for
40 years had better go back to school.
The evidence is then dazzling for anyone who wants to abandon Newtonian
and even Einsteinian a priori. The covered distance
by land for Stella cannot be the same as the distance traveled by Stella
for Terrence (12 al).
The distance is obviously x=Vapp.Tr

x=4c*9years

So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]

It is so obvious that I will never understand how one can oppose rapid and
inconsiderate refutations to everything I have been saying for 40 years,
and in particular on rotating frames of reference or uniformly accelerated
frames of reference, theoretical and logical proofs in support, supporting
experimental evidence too.

At this level, we are no longer in science, but in sociology, even
theology:
“We don’t want this man to rule over us.”
It's downright stupid.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
> relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being
> anti-relativist, which is false. I never said anywhere that the theory
> of relativity was false, I simply said, and tenaciously, that it was
> incorrect, which is far from being the same thing.

this is not true. Apparently the nazi Hitler kept them protected in red
bricks houses, vacation camps, with theater etc. Most of people are not
living in red bricks houses today. In 1800s they modified The Biblen, me
frendo, apparently.

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗣𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_6_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/video/Zvjc2ixWRi06

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗡𝗦_𝗖𝗮𝗺𝗽𝘀_𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗡𝗢𝗧_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵_𝗖𝗮𝗺𝗽𝘀,_𝗠𝗮𝗿_25,_2024
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/AsAOlElZebTN

𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗡_𝗢𝗙_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗝𝗘𝗪𝗦_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀_101
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/GGHH3rvOvOaJ

Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
> relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
I have missed that.
I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
experiment and its results. Is it available?

I would like to include your experiment here:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
your place in the history of physics.

Congratulations!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
>> relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
> I have missed that.
> I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
> experiment and its results. Is it available?
>
> I would like to include your experiment here:
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>
> If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
> your place in the history of physics.
>
> Congratulations!

I think that you, Paul, have not yet understood the depths of human
behavior.

R.H.

Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>
> If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
> your place in the history of physics.
>
> Congratulations!

I have already had my experiences for 40 years or more.

Two crucial experiences:
“Find the momentum of a particle, and you will get
p=m.v/sqrt(1-v²/c²)”.
“Place polarized lenses, and you will obtain paired photons on the other
side, by instantaneous transfer of information.”

So the experiences have proven me right for a long time (but not the men
because they are stupid and arrogant as hell).

The problem is not even experimental, but theoretical.

My theory is simple and very clear.

Minkowski's is contradictory, ridiculous and incoherent in the description
of a simple Langevin.

I have the theoretical strength and experimental evidence.

What more can be said?

Who cannot, being convinced of the validity of what I say, see that there
is no longer a scientific problem but a global psychiatric problem?

Jesus Christ said the same thing “But you guys are really sick, you
really need a doctor”.

The problem is NOT scientific.

He is human.

"We don't want this Doctor Hachel to rule over us, we have big penises. At
night, we bring our women all to orgasm."

Freud says the same thing. Jesus says the same thing. Pascal says the same
thing. Nietzsche says the same thing.

Always, always, always, the same phenomenon occurs again.

R.H.

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.

>> I have missed that.
>> I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
>> experiment and its results. Is it available?
>>
>> I would like to include your experiment here:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>>
>> If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
>> your place in the history of physics.
>>
>> Congratulations!

> I have already had my experiences for 40 years or more.

Experience, but no experiment? :-D

SR is a consistent theory.
It is only one way to falsify a consistent theory,
that is to show that the predictions of the theory
are not in accordance with measurements.

You claim to have falsified SR, so you must have made
an experiment which falsifies SR.

Or where you lying?

> My theory is simple and very clear.

Indeed. And experimentally falsified.

May I remind you:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>> Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
|>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
|>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
|>
|> CERN physicists are doing their job.
|> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
|> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
|> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

> SR is a consistent theory.

No.

She is inconsistent and ridiculous in front of a simple doctor (me)
who tells him that there is a Langevin paradox and that no one for 120
years has succeeded in solving it.

It is common knowledge that one can only respond to him with hatred and
insult.

Which is NOT scientific.

She is completely wrong in accelerated frames of reference and rotating
frames of reference. It is not normal.

Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says, and
can only always, always, always lower its pants, which is NOT NORMAL.

If Richard Hachel says: "Stella's time is 9 years for the return", are the
physicists in their pants? And why? Because it's false? No way! Because
it's true, and they know it, and they teach it, but it would hurt them to
admit it.

If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not
true."

All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most intelligent
of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.

All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and
9*4=36”.

It is to say the opposite which is inconsistent.

It's a stupid cock contest.

“We don’t want this man to rule over us.”

It's very Freudian, even on the scale of the biggest names in world
science.

R.H.

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

Can you show me a little fact of it.

A very small.

And I am silent, gentlemen.

Even the Nobel Prize winner Alain Aspect says that I am right about the
principle of non-locality, and the greatest mathematician in the world,
Henri Poincaré, says that I am right when I write "There will therefore
exist an impenetrable limit speed which will extend to all particles,
bodies and laws of the universe.
I simply combine the two.
Scientists can't.
Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists who
don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

R.H.

On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> SR is a consistent theory.
>
> No.
>
> Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,

Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
Richard Hachel is wrong.
>
> If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
> it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
> it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not
> true."

We perform an experiment to test this to see if SR or Richard Hachel is
correct, and we find that SR is correct and Richard Hachel is wrong.
>
> All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most
> intelligent of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.
>
> All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and
> 9*4=36”.

So far, no experiment has been done where one could correctly state
"Hachel is right and SR is wrong." Although Hachel is correct when he
states 9*4=36, but that is not inconsistent with SR, of course.

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>
The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
(within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
Just one.

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 14:08, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> Experience, but no experiment? :-D
>
> SR is a consistent theory.

No it's not. Its inconsistency has been proven
here dosens of time.

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 15:36, Volney pisze:
> On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>
> The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
> Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all the serious
clocks always did.

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 15:33, Volney pisze:
> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>>> SR is a consistent theory.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,
>
> Since experiment agrees with special relativity

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :
> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
> Richard Hachel is wrong.

Your remark is biased.

I'll let you think about why.

R.H.

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
> On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>
> The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
> Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
> (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
> Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.

I think you still don't understand the human problem.

Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to
demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
Russians and not the other way around.

You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.

We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin intervened
in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years of
bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine, the
ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear missiles on its
border.

No way.

We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil, he
invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the children
in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six years".

That's what they tell you today on television.

And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?

But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I gave cases of proof.

Usenet is your friend.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :
>> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
>> Richard Hachel is wrong.
>
> Your remark is biased. I'll let you think about why. R.H.

former proverbial Michael Morony is correct. You have to make your theory different regarding A predicted outcome. You have to have an outcome, otherwise you are insignificant.

me suspects, Einstine first had an outcome, then his wife made a theory to him. Einstine was not good enough. As proof, america fighting the nazis WW2 said "𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮". They even regret today fighting the nazis. Even Hitler let the blacks at OL in gearmony, which proves the frog homos are worse than Hitler.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗻𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗺𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗿’𝘀_𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗢𝗹𝘆𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗰_𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀
Some French products could be declared ‘not welcome’ in Russia, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has warned
https://www.%72t.com/russia/595182-athletes-olympic-paris-zakharova/

paris mayor calling the israeli genocide in Gaza Death Camp is different because it doesn’t want the israeli media to start publishing the massacres committed by the french in algeria. easy, google french massacres in algeria and click image. You will find that france and israel have the same moral values

THE FRENCH HOMO GOVERNMENT ARE LOOKING FOR A HARD SLAP IN THEIR ARSE

proves homos worse than Hitler.

That should automatically disqualify France from being a host of the Olympics.

Will Paris mayor welcome blood soaked, baby killer, Israeli Jews with open arms? She described Israel as a democracy and said that's why Israel is fine to compete. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻t.

<img alt='fa01' src=''>

On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
>> On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>>
>> The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
>> Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
>> (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
>> Just one.
>
> One will not be enough more than ten.
>
> I think you still don't understand the human problem.
>
> Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to
> demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
> Russians and not the other way around.
>
> You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.
>
> We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin
> intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
> as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years
> of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of
> Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear
> missiles on its border.
>
> No way.
>
> We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil,
> he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the
> children in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six
> years".

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>
> That's what they tell you today on television.
>
> And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?
>
> But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.
>
> I gave cases of proof.
>
> Usenet is your friend.
>
> R.H.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>>

So we will have disagreed on everything.
But it does not matter.

R.H.

On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
>> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
>> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
>> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>>>
>
> So we will have disagreed on everything.
> But it does not matter.

That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>> But it does not matter.
>
> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

Why use the word “lies”.
If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

R.H.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
>> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
> > >
> > > On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
> > > > who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
> > > >
> > > The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
> > > Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
> > > (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
> > > Just one.
> >
> > One will not be enough more than ten.
> >
> > I think you still don't understand the human problem.
> >
> > Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to
> > demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
> > Russians and not the other way around.
> >
> > You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.
> >
> > We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin
> > intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
> > as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years
> > of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of
> > Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear
> > missiles on its border.
> >
> > No way.
> >
> > We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil,
> > he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the
> > children in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six
> > years".
>
> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
he says about relativity. However, if I know he's lying about some other
subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he
says about relativity.

You, OTOH, seem to employ irrelevant issues to dismiss the main argument.
That, of course, is the easy way, but it's akin to attacking the messenger
rather than the message. If you remember, you did that to me :-(

On 2024-04-01 11:50:15 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>>> But it does not matter.
>>
>> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?
>
> Why use the word “lies”.

Because I know as well you do what appears on French television. Please
give a date channel and if you want anyone to believe that what you was
not a liee.

> If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

Not when they're deliberate.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

W dniu 01.04.2024 o 14:50, gharnagel pisze:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> >
>>> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
>> > >
>> > > On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > > > > > > Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid
>> physicists > > > who don't want to do science, but the poor cock
>> competition?
>> > > > > > The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
>> > > Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with
>> SR > > (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
>> predictions. > > Just one.
>> > > One will not be enough more than ten.
>> > > I think you still don't understand the human problem.
>> > > Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be
>> enough to > demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war
>> with the > Russians and not the other way around.
>> > > You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.
>> > > We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin >
>> intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
>> > as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight
>> years > of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations
>> of > Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of
>> thermo-nuclear > missiles on its border.
>> > > No way.
>> > > We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is
>> evil, > he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will
>> eat the > children in the incubators and rape all the little girls
>> aged six > years".
>>
>> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
>> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
>> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
>> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>
> This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
> he says about relativity.  However, if I know he's lying about some other
> subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he
> says about relativity.

You, on the other hand - are lying only
about the subject of the relativity. At least
here.

Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
>
> Can you show me a little fact of it.

Again? I have done it several times, but OK:

It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider is 6927⋅c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.

>
> A very small.
>
> And I am silent, gentlemen.
>
> Even the Nobel Prize winner Alain Aspect says that I am right about the
> principle of non-locality,

Can you please explain how non-locality affects the predictions of SR?
Does it make any of the following confirmations of SR invalid?

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

> the greatest mathematician in the world,
> Henri Poincaré, says that I am right when I write "There will therefore
> exist an impenetrable limit speed which will extend to all particles,
> bodies and laws of the universe.

Quite.
And we know that the impenetrable limit speed is c.

So why do you claim that the speed of protons can be 6927⋅c?

> I simply combine the two.

So if you combine non-locality and the principle that c is
an impenetrable limit speed, you find that the speed of
protons can be 6927⋅c ?

> Scientists can't.
> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
the theory that's never falsified.
Right? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 31.03.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> SR is a consistent theory.
>
> No.

SR is mathematical consistent. Indisputable fact!

>
> She is inconsistent and ridiculous in front of a simple doctor (me)
> who tells him that there is a Langevin paradox and that no one for 120
> years has succeeded in solving it.

That some simple doctor (you) finds the predictions of SR ridiculous
doesn't make SR inconsistent, it only demonstrates that the simple
doctor (you) is ignorant of elementary math and physics.

Einstein 'solved' the twin paradox in 1905. Didn't you know?

"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting
t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled clock on its arrival at A will be t⋅v²/2c² seconds slow."

(The exact result is Δt = t⋅(1−√(1 −v²/c²)), but as explained in
the paper: √(1 − v²/c²)) ≈ (1 - v²/2c²) when v²/c² << 1)

Here is another example:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf

SR predicts that the travelling
twin will age slower, which is experimentally confirmed.
No mystery, no paradox.

Here is the experimental confirmation:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

The "twin" that travels around the Earth in the eastward
direction ages less than the 'twin' that travels in the westwards
direction, because the speed of the former is higher than the speed
of the latter, both speeds measured in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference.

>
> It is common knowledge that one can only respond to him with hatred and
> insult.

One has only pointed out that his theory is experimentally falsified.
If he perceives that as hatred and insult, it's his problem.

> Which is NOT scientific.

Experimental falsification of a theory is indeed scientific.

The following is an interesting study of his mind! :-D

> Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,
> and can only always, always, always lower its pants, which is NOT NORMAL.
>
> If Richard Hachel says: "Stella's time is 9 years for the return", are
> the physicists in their pants? And why? Because it's false? No way!
> Because it's true, and they know it, and they teach it, but it would
> hurt them to admit it.
>
> If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
> it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
> it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not
> true."
>
> All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most
> intelligent of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.
>
> All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and
> 9*4=36”.
>
> It is to say the opposite which is inconsistent.
>
> It's a stupid cock contest.
>
> “We don’t want this man to rule over us.”
>
> It's very Freudian, even on the scale of the biggest names in world
> science.
>

BTW, Richard.
Physicists (and astronomers) are well aware of the fact that when
matter is approaching you at high speed, then the speed may appear
to be faster than c. It doesn't happen if the matter is moving right
at you along the line of sight, because then it is impossible to
measure any speed.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

This is a _very_ well known phenomenon, and I find it rather amusing
that you are so ignorant that you believe that physicists would deny
its existence.

I will repost something I wrote back in 2003.
It is about "superluminal jets" from galaxies, (look it up!)
an example of which you can see here:
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg

Matter in the jets is moving at high speed.
As this matter ploughs through the intergalactic medium (very thin gas),
radiation - mostly at radio frequencies - is emitted. It is this
radiation and not the matter itself that is observed.
The stream of matter is however not very steady. It may be "blobs" of
matter in the jets which will be visible in the observed radiation.
These "blobs" are observed to move, and it is supposed that the matter
in the jets move with the same speed as the observed "blobs".

So what really is observed is the angular speed of these blobs,
from which you can calculate the transverse speed assuming you know
the distance to the source.

So let's do the calculations on a realistic case:

O * galaxy
angle of jet from A
line of sight = a /
/ jet
/
B

The observed time interval between reception of light emitted from A
and B (distance L) will be:
t_o = L/v - L*cos(a)/c
The apparent _traverse_ speed will be the apparent _traverse_ distance
divided by this time interval:
v_app = L*sin(a)/t_o = v*sin(a)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(a))

Note that v_app > c when v > c/(sin(a)+cos(a))
Note also that since (sin(a)+cos(a)) > 1 for any a < pi/2, v_app can,
as long as the jet is moving towards the observer, be > c if v is
sufficiently close to c.

For example, if a = pi/4 the apparent traverse speed is superluminal
if v > ca. 0.7*c

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/